Models Of Knowledge And Systems Of Governance
The analysis of the main features of knowledge, in terms of domain, characteristics and processes makes it possible to trace significant shifts in the economics of knowledge. Changing emphasis about the role of knowledge appropriability, divisibility and tradability has provided different solutions to the knowledge trade-off. Three different and rival concepts of technological knowledge can be identified: a) knowledge as a public good, b) knowledge as a proprietary good, c) knowledge as a localized, collective and complex, path dependent activity. Such a shift has relevant implications in terms of governance mechanisms, strategic attitude of agents and public policy making.
|Date of creation:||Oct 2005|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.unito.it/|
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Arrow, Kenneth J, 1969. "Classificatory Notes on the Production and Transmission of Technological Knowledge," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 59(2), pages 29-35, May.
- Gil Avnimelech & Morris Teubal, 2004. "Venture capital start-up co-evolution and the emergence & development of Israel's new high tech cluster," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(1), pages 33-60.
- Audretsch, David B & Feldman, Maryann P, 1996. "R&D Spillovers and the Geography of Innovation and Production," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 630-40, June.
- Harabi, Najib, 1994.
"Appropriability of Technical Innovations: An Empirical Analysis,"
26267, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Harabi, Najib, 1995. "Appropriability of technical innovations an empirical analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 981-992, November.
- Harabi, N., 1993. "Appropriabiblity of Technical Innovations: An Empirical Analysis," Papers 31a, Universitat Zurich - Wirtschaftswissenschaftliches Institut.
- Antonelli Cristiano, 2013.
"The economics of technological congruence,"
Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers
201306, University of Turin.
- Antonelli,Cristiano, 2013. "The economics of technological congruence," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 201304, University of Turin.
- Cowan Robin & David Paul & Foray Dominique, 1999.
"The Explicit Economics of Knowledge Codification and Tacitness,"
025, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
- Cowan, Robin & David, Paul A & Foray, Dominique, 2000. "The Explicit Economics of Knowledge Codification and Tacitness," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 211-53, June.
- Robin Cowan & Paul A. David & Dominique Foray, 1999. "The Explicit Economics of Knowledge Codification and Tacitness," Working Papers 99027, Stanford University, Department of Economics.
- Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Stiglitz, Joseph E & Weiss, Andrew, 1981. "Credit Rationing in Markets with Imperfect Information," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(3), pages 393-410, June.
- G. B. Richardson, 1998. "The Economics of Imperfect Knowledge," Books, Edward Elgar, number 1524, April.
- Alchian, Armen A. & Demsetz, Harold, 1973. "The Property Right Paradigm," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(01), pages 16-27, March.
- Mazzoleni, Roberto & Nelson, Richard R., 1998. "The benefits and costs of strong patent protection: a contribution to the current debate," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 273-284, July.
- Allen, Robert C., 1983. "Collective invention," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 1-24, March.
- Audretsch, David B & Stephan, Paula E, 1996. "Company-Scientist Locational Links: The Case of Biotechnology," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 641-52, June.
- Kingston, William, 2001. "Innovation needs patents reform," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 403-423, March.
- Mansfield, Edwin & Schwartz, Mark & Wagner, Samuel, 1981. "Imitation Costs and Patents: An Empirical Study," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 91(364), pages 907-18, December.
- Antonelli, Cristiano, 2001. "The Microeconomics of Technological Systems," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199245536.
- Machlup, Fritz & Penrose, Edith, 1950. "The Patent Controversy in the Nineteenth Century," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(01), pages 1-29, May.
- Atkinson, Anthony B & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1969. "A New View of Technological Change," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 79(315), pages 573-78, September.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uto:labeco:200501. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Piero Cavaleri)or (Marina Grazioli)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.